Decoding trust: A reinforcement learning perspective

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2309.14598v2
• Date: Sun, 26 Nov 2023 11:37:35 GMT
• Title: Decoding trust: A reinforcement learning perspective
• Authors: Guozhong Zheng, Jiqiang Zhang, Jing Zhang, Weiran Cai, and Li Chen
• Abstract summary: Behavioral experiments on the trust game have shown that trust and trustworthiness are universal among human beings. We turn to the paradigm of reinforcement learning, where individuals update their strategies by evaluating the long-term return through accumulated experience. In the pairwise scenario, we reveal that high levels of trust and trustworthiness emerge when individuals appreciate both their historical experience and returns in the future.
• Score: 11.04265850036115
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
• Abstract: Behavioral experiments on the trust game have shown that trust and trustworthiness are universal among human beings, contradicting the prediction by assuming \emph{Homo economicus} in orthodox Economics. This means some mechanism must be at work that favors their emergence. Most previous explanations however need to resort to some factors based upon imitative learning, a simple version of social learning. Here, we turn to the paradigm of reinforcement learning, where individuals update their strategies by evaluating the long-term return through accumulated experience. Specifically, we investigate the trust game with the Q-learning algorithm, where each participant is associated with two evolving Q-tables that guide one's decision making as trustor and trustee respectively. In the pairwise scenario, we reveal that high levels of trust and trustworthiness emerge when individuals appreciate both their historical experience and returns in the future. Mechanistically, the evolution of the Q-tables shows a crossover that resembles human's psychological changes. We also provide the phase diagram for the game parameters, where the boundary analysis is conducted. These findings are robust when the scenario is extended to a latticed population. Our results thus provide a natural explanation for the emergence of trust and trustworthiness without external factors involved. More importantly, the proposed paradigm shows the potential in deciphering many puzzles in human behaviors.

Related papers

• Performative Prediction on Games and Mechanism Design [69.7933059664256]
  We study a collective risk dilemma where agents decide whether to trust predictions based on past accuracy. As predictions shape collective outcomes, social welfare arises naturally as a metric of concern. We show how to achieve better trade-offs and use them for mechanism design.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-08-09T16:03:44Z)
• Towards Machines that Trust: AI Agents Learn to Trust in the Trust Game [11.788352764861369]
  We present a theoretical analysis of the $textittrust game$, the canonical task for studying trust in behavioral and brain sciences. Specifically, leveraging reinforcement learning to train our AI agents, we investigate learning trust under various parameterizations of this task. Our theoretical analysis, corroborated by the simulations results presented, provides a mathematical basis for the emergence of trust in the trust game.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-12-20T09:32:07Z)
• A Diachronic Perspective on User Trust in AI under Uncertainty [52.44939679369428]
  Modern NLP systems are often uncalibrated, resulting in confidently incorrect predictions that undermine user trust. We study the evolution of user trust in response to trust-eroding events using a betting game.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-10-20T14:41:46Z)
• Explaining Model Confidence Using Counterfactuals [4.385390451313721]
  Displaying confidence scores in human-AI interaction has been shown to help build trust between humans and AI systems. Most existing research uses only the confidence score as a form of communication. We show that counterfactual explanations of confidence scores help study participants to better understand and better trust a machine learning model's prediction.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-03-10T06:22:13Z)
• Trust Calibration as a Function of the Evolution of Uncertainty in Knowledge Generation: A Survey [1.462008690460147]
  We argue that accounting for the propagation of uncertainty from data sources all the way through extraction of information is necessary to understand how user trust in a visual analytics system evolves over its lifecycle. We sample a broad cross-section of the literature from visual analytics, human cognitive theory, and uncertainty, and attempt to synthesize a useful perspective.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-09-09T16:46:37Z)
• Trust in AI: Interpretability is not necessary or sufficient, while black-box interaction is necessary and sufficient [0.0]
  The problem of human trust in artificial intelligence is one of the most fundamental problems in applied machine learning. We draw from statistical learning theory and sociological lenses on human-automation trust to motivate an AI-as-tool framework. We clarify the role of interpretability in trust with a ladder of model access.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-02-10T19:59:23Z)
• Empirical Estimates on Hand Manipulation are Recoverable: A Step Towards Individualized and Explainable Robotic Support in Everyday Activities [80.37857025201036]
  Key challenge for robotic systems is to figure out the behavior of another agent. Processing correct inferences is especially challenging when (confounding) factors are not controlled experimentally. We propose equipping robots with the necessary tools to conduct observational studies on people.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-01-27T22:15:56Z)
• Formalizing Trust in Artificial Intelligence: Prerequisites, Causes and Goals of Human Trust in AI [55.4046755826066]
  We discuss a model of trust inspired by, but not identical to, sociology's interpersonal trust (i.e., trust between people) We incorporate a formalization of 'contractual trust', such that trust between a user and an AI is trust that some implicit or explicit contract will hold. We discuss how to design trustworthy AI, how to evaluate whether trust has manifested, and whether it is warranted.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-10-15T03:07:23Z)
• Where Does Trust Break Down? A Quantitative Trust Analysis of Deep Neural Networks via Trust Matrix and Conditional Trust Densities [94.65749466106664]
  We introduce the concept of trust matrix, a novel trust quantification strategy. A trust matrix defines the expected question-answer trust for a given actor-oracle answer scenario. We further extend the concept of trust densities with the notion of conditional trust densities.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-09-30T14:33:43Z)
• How Much Can We Really Trust You? Towards Simple, Interpretable Trust Quantification Metrics for Deep Neural Networks [94.65749466106664]
  We conduct a thought experiment and explore two key questions about trust in relation to confidence. We introduce a suite of metrics for assessing the overall trustworthiness of deep neural networks based on their behaviour when answering a set of questions. The proposed metrics are by no means perfect, but the hope is to push the conversation towards better metrics.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-09-12T17:37:36Z)

This list is automatically generated from the titles and abstracts of the papers in this site.

This site does not guarantee the quality of this site (including all information) and is not responsible for any consequences.